M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiffs' under Section 100 C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.8.1990 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 60 of 1989 whereby the appellate court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30th July, 1989 passed by Subordinate Judge -V, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 89 of 1984 and finally dismissed the suit.
(2.) THE plaintiffs -appellants filed the aforementioned Title Suit No. 89 of 1984 for declaration that the deed of gift dated 24.8.1983 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 is void, illegal and inoperative and further for a decree of permanent injunction directing defendant No. 1 to admit execution of sale -deeds dated 22.8.1983 and 26.8.1983 or to execute fresh sale -deeds in favour of the plaintiffs before the District Sub Registrar, Hazaribagh. A further relief for khas possession of the suit property was also sought for. The plaintiffs' case is that one Budhan Mistri, grandfather of plaintiff No. 1, Baldeo Rana, had taken raiyati settlement of 14 acres of land in plot No. 3/1384 of Khata No. 28/43 in village Jarahia in the district of Hazaribagh from the ex -landlord under a Hukumnama dated 20.2.1946 and thereafter was recognized as a raiyat and paid rent to the State of Bihar. The settlee being in need of money, sold 7 acres of land out of 14 acres of land by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 19.2.1961 to dependant No. 1. There was an understanding between the grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 that if the vendee, defendant No. 1, will sell the said land, he will first offer to his vendor and if he was dead, then to his heirs at the prevailing market rate. It was further alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant No. 1 wanted to dispose of the said land and the maximum price fixed was Rs. 15000/ -. According to the aforesaid understanding, defendant No. 1 approached plaintiff No. 1 and asked if he was willing to purchase the property at Rs. 15000/ - to which plaintiff No. 1 agreed and it was settled that defendant No. 2 shall execute sale -deed; one for Rs. 10000/ - and another for Rs. 5000/ - covering 5 acres and 2 acres of land in the name of plaintiff No. 1 and his father plaintiff No. 2. Plaintiffs' further case is that pursuant to that understanding, both the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 came to Hazaribagh and two sale deeds were executed on 22.8.1983 by defendant No. 1 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 after receiving the full consideration amount. Defendant No. 1 presented the two sale -deeds for registration on 22.8.1983 before the District Sub Registrar, Hazaribagh, but the said document could not be registered on that date. The parties were directed to appear on the next date i.e. 23.8.1983 for admitting the execution and registration. Plaintiffs' case is that on the next date, defendant No. 1 did not turn up and he was not available in the village. On 25.8.1983, the plaintiffs learnt from the villagers that defendant No. 1 executed a registered deed of gift in respect of the suit property in favour of his sons, defendant Nos. 2 to 6. Plaintiff No. 1 having come to know of this fact, came to Hazaribagh on 26.8.1983 and obtained copy of the registered deed of gift. He field a petition before the Sub Registrar for issuance of notice to defendant No. 1 for executing two sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 appeared before Sub Registrar, Hazaribagh on 27.10.1983 and gave statement that his signatures were taken on a blank stamp paper and he has not received any consideration and that fraud has been practiced upon him. The Sub Registrar, thereafter, passed order on 27.10.1983 refusing to register the documents.
(3.) THE case of the defendants' - respondents, on the other hand, is that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendants denied each and every allegation made in the plaint. Defendant No. 1 denied that he ever wanted to dispose of the property and he was not in need of money. He neither approached plaintiff No. 1 nor ever agreed to sell the suit property by executing two sale -deeds. Defendant No. 1 also denied the fact that he ever came to Hazaribagh on 22.8.1983 along with plaintiff No. 1 and executed any sale deed. On the contrary, on 22.8.1983, while defendant No. 1 was in the village home, plaintiff No. 1 came to him and brought him to Hazaribagh. In front of the office of Hazaribagh Municipality, he along with other persons was encircled and plaintiff No. 1 obtained his signature on blank stamp -paper forcibly putting him into fear of his instant death. Soon after the incidence, defendant No. 1 alleged to have come down to his village home and narrated the whole incidence and made an attempt to lodge FIR in Barhi Police Station on 23.8.1983. The police declined to register the case. It was alleged by defendant No. 1 that thereafter, he also tried to lodge Sanha at the Sadar Police Station, Hazaribagh, but the Police Officer advised him to come on the next day. Consequently, the Sanha was not recorded. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 alleged to have filed a complaint case on 26.8.1983. Defendants' further case is that plaintiff No. 1, after obtaining signatures of defendant No. 1 on the blank stamp paper, converted it into two sale -deeds and got the same presented before the District Sub Registrar, Hazaribagh in a futile attempt to get those sale -deeds registered. Besides the other facts, defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any decree as sought for by them.;